Na'vi in a Nutshell

[Ataeghane]

New Na'vi activity fun book (see that thread) is about to get under way. THAT MEANS I NEED HELP. Please respond or PM me. I want to see if anyone (outside the core clique) is still serious about learning Na'vi.

I need a few volunteers to help organize words and phrases.

By the way, how can one get to that clique ?

[Tirea Aean]

New Na'vi activity fun book (see that thread) is about to get under way. THAT MEANS I NEED HELP. Please respond or PM me. I want to see if anyone (outside the core clique) is still serious about learning Na'vi.

I need a few volunteers to help organize words and phrases.

By the way, how can one get to that clique ?

you probably are already... if your Na'vi is good and you are still very active in the na'vi language learning area of this forum and its been a while...

[Ataeghane]

Well, thanks . I thought joining this clique is much more skepek . I'm trying to be quite active and I'm taking up a few projcts to do...

[Tonbogiri]

Hi! I am looking to learn the na'vi language. Another fun book would be great - unfortunately, not sure I can help, me being a total beginner...

[Tirea Aean]

Hi! I am looking to learn the na'vi language. Another fun book would be great - unfortunately, not sure I can help, me being a total beginner...

this thread is for the Na'vi in a Nutshell guide concerning edits and such.

I take it you finished Kaltxì Palulukan's Learn Na'vi the Easy Way Activity book?
Kaltxì Palulukan is coming out with a new improved Learn Na'vi the Easy Way Activity Book

[Tonbogiri]

Heh, still working through it. Much more fun than learning French!

[Plumps]

Don't know if this has been said already, but the sentence 'I knew the clan leader who just died' in 8.1.1. should be

    Oe-r sm‹am›on olo'eyktan a t‹ìm›erkup.
or
    T‹ìm›erkup a olo'eyktan sm‹am›on oe-r.

Although I'm not sure about the use of ‹am› and ‹ìm› in this context.

omum is for knwoing facts, smon is for knowing people.

[Eywa'eveng-tìranyu]

It's only a tiny error:
p.22 - 7.1 - List of adpositions.
at tafkip it should be tafkip, not tafkip.

[NeotrekkerZ]

Yeah, smon didn't exist when I wrote that particular sentence.  Thanks for the heads up.  I'm not 100% about the use of the infixes there either, but until we know better I'll leave them.  I also tweaked tafkip.

[Tse'anìwotx]

I've noticed a problem with the Possession section. I found a thread from November (I think) that raised this question, but the problem remains. In the current version, 2.6, Language Notes 3.7 and 3.8 are very confusing.

They say:

Language Note #3.7: For pronouns ending in ng, an extra e is added before the suffix:

ayoeng → ayoeng-eyä        our

Language Note #3.8: For pronouns, this e overrides the vowel at the end:

nga → ng-eyä         your
fo → f-eyä              their
tsaw → ts-eyä        its
sno → sn-eyä         his/her/their own

LN 3.7 implies that only pronouns ending in ng require an extra e to be added before the genitive suffix. This is not true. LN 3.8 further confuses the issue by adding the e to all pronouns, not just the ones ending in ng, and dropping other vowels from those pronouns for seemingly no reason. To someone new to Na'vi, this makes no sense at all, as there is no explination for it. This section should probably be revised to inform the reader that all pronouns, regardless of what they end with, (when made possessive) undergo a change where the final vowel or diphthong morphs into an e, which includes the a that reappears on the 1st person inclusive pronouns when a suffix is added. This makes yä, as opposed to ä, the appropriate genitive suffix to be used.

Also, a mention of fkeyä should probably be made in there somewhere, unless I am incorrect in assuming that it is actually a word. And there seems to be an issue with sno and sneyä. All current resources, including NiaN, seem to imply they are basically the same word. No clear distinction is made between the two. I would assume that sno means ...his own... and sneyä means ...of his own.../...his own (insert item)'s... Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

BTW, thank you so much for taking the time to create and update this. It is a great guide for the new folks.

[Tirea Aean]

I've noticed a problem with the Possession section. I found a thread from November (I think) that raised this question, but the problem remains. In the current version, 2.6, Language Notes 3.7 and 3.8 are very confusing.

They say:

Language Note #3.7: For pronouns ending in ng, an extra e is added before the suffix:

ayoeng → ayoeng-eyä        our

Language Note #3.8: For pronouns, this e overrides the vowel at the end:

nga → ng-eyä         your
fo → f-eyä              their
tsaw → ts-eyä        its
sno → sn-eyä         his/her/their own

LN 3.7 implies that only pronouns ending in ng require an extra e to be added before the genitive suffix. This is not true. LN 3.8 further confuses the issue by adding the e to all pronouns, not just the ones ending in ng, and dropping other vowels from those pronouns for seemingly no reason. To someone new to Na'vi, this makes no sense at all, as there is no explination for it. This section should probably be revised to inform the reader that all pronouns, regardless of what they end with, (when made possessive) undergo a change where the final vowel or diphthong morphs into an e, which includes the a that reappears on the 1st person inclusive pronouns when a suffix is added. This makes yä, as opposed to ä, the appropriate genitive suffix to be used.

Also, a mention of fkeyä should probably be made in there somewhere, unless I am incorrect in assuming that it is actually a word. And there seems to be an issue with sno and sneyä. All current resources, including NiaN, seem to imply they are basically the same word. No clear distinction is made between the two. I would assume that sno means his own and sneyä means of his own. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

BTW, thank you so much for taking the time to create and update this. It is a great guide for the new folks.

agree. that needs to be simplified accordingly..

sneyä and peyä ARE DIFFERENT.

sneyä clears up the ambiguity of

he ate his food.

well did he eat his own food or the other guy's food?
peyä would be ambiguous and possibly point to the second situation. sneyä strictly talks about the 3rd person subject's own.

peyä: his/her
sneyä: his/her own (use when you want to be specific about this especially when peyä may cause confusion)

[Tse'anìwotx]

sneyä and peyä ARE DIFFERENT.

sneyä clears up the ambiguity of

he ate his food.

well did he eat his own food or the other guy's food?
peyä would be ambiguous and possibly point to the second situation. sneyä strictly talks about the 3rd person subject's own.

peyä: his/her
sneyä: his/her own (use when you want to be specific about this especially when peyä may cause confusion)

Right, I understand the need to specify who's stuff is being referred to. But what I mean to say is, what is the point of sno? How would you ever use it in a sentence? Sno and sneyä seem to be interchangeable at this point.

[Tirea Aean]

sneyä and peyä ARE DIFFERENT.

sneyä clears up the ambiguity of

he ate his food.

well did he eat his own food or the other guy's food?
peyä would be ambiguous and possibly point to the second situation. sneyä strictly talks about the 3rd person subject's own.

peyä: his/her
sneyä: his/her own (use when you want to be specific about this especially when peyä may cause confusion)

Right, I understand the need to specify who's stuff is being referred to. But what I mean to say is, what is the point of sno? How would you ever use it in a sentence? Sno and sneyä seem to be interchangeable at this point.

Sno and sneyä are definitely not interchangable. its just the theory that sneyä is a possessive pronoun. therefore it has to be the possessive of SOMETHING. and it is apparently sno. it's a pronoun. it's still a little shaky on its own. i suspect sno being mega rare. nìsno also was talked about at the workshop. having a very self oriented meaning. but I'm not sure if that ever made it as a word.

[Tse'anìwotx]

it's a pronoun. it's still a little shaky on its own.

So, does this mean that we don't really know exactly what sno would translate as?

Is it that sno indicates isolation, as in he is on his own (this seems unlikely), and that sneyä is the only one that indicates possession?

[Tirea Aean]

it's a pronoun. it's still a little shaky on its own.

So, does this mean that we don't really know exactly what sno would translate as?

Is it that sno indicates isolation, as in he is on his own (this seems unlikely), and that sneyä is the only one that indicates possession?

I believe even in the dictionary that sno I'll not there except referenced as the word sneyä is derived from.

I myself am having a hard time coming up with a good explanation.

[eejmensenikbenhet]

Why has Language Note #1.1 dissappeared?

[Tse'anìwotx]

Why has Language Note #1.1 dissappeared?

It is still there, on page 6.

[eejmensenikbenhet]

Why has Language Note #1.1 dissappeared?

It is still there, on page 6.

I meant the #1.1 from version 2.5

[Tse'anìwotx]

I meant the #1.1 from version 2.5

What did it say?

[NeotrekkerZ]

I deleted the original LN 1.1 as it was cumbersome and not completely valid.  In regards to the pronoun stuff, It'll be tweaked in v2.7.